L’action des bénévoles dans les soins palliatifs. Remarques à partir de l’expérience québécoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the presence of volunteers working with hospitalized patients receiving palliative care and the meaning each of the actors gives to that presence. It is based on a body of semi-structured interviews with patients, families, medical personnel, and volunteers in 10 hospitals. Within the context of the extension of a palliative approach to all departments where deaths occur, we attempt to understand how (and within what work settings) personnel and volunteers “work” together, and how that lay presence is perceived by patients at the end of life and their families. While the analysis highlighted important differences in viewpoints on the volunteer work studied, primarily as a function of the type of actors involved and the work setting, it also identified a certain number of conflicts that each person attempts to overcome in their own way. This raises the question of what form this particular activity should take in France, an activity that, in the words of volunteers, is not to “do” but to “be there to be there [out of] human solidarity.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".